Laws directed at protecting archeological sites
frequently target those located on State or federally owned property,
but many sites are located on private property. These sites represent
a significant portion of the identified sites in many States, meaning
that large numbers of our nation's archeological resources are not protected.

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry was created
to address this problem. Modeled on The Nature Conservancy's nationally
successful program for protecting privately owned natural areas, the
Registry represents a way to involve private landowners in the protection
of Kentucky's significant archeological sites. Landowners are asked
to make a commitment to preserve and protect their sites and are presented
awards in recognition of these commitments. In addition, they are educated
about their sites' significance, provided management assistance, and
informed about stronger preservation options available to them.

Following the introduction, this publication describes
the objectives of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry, how a landowner
can participate in the program, and the steps in the landowner contact/site
registration process. Next, the results of the Kentucky Archaeological
Registry's first two years of operation are discussed, and the Registry's
successes are evaluated. Finally, the role landowner contact/site registration
can play as part of a broader site protection and preservation program
is discussed.

Introduction

Concern for the protection and preservation of archeological
sites has been voiced for about as long as their destruction has occurred.
The passage of the Antiquities
Act of 1906, the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act of 1979, and subsequent laws and regulations,
as well as State antiquities laws and regulations, have made the protection
and preservation of archeological sites a matter of public policy. Yet
for the most part, these laws are directed at protecting sites located
on Federal, State, county, and municipal property, or those sites threatened
by destruction from State or federally licensed or permitted projects.
Generally, archeological sites located on private land have not benefitted
from any programmatic site protection policy. The protection and preservation
of these archeological sites rests almost entirely in the hands of private
landowners.

One way to ensure that these sites are preserved and
protected is for the lands on which they are located to be brought into
public ownership or to be acquired "in fee" by preservation groups.
That is, all rights to such property are acquired (Ford 1983; Hoose
1981:26-27). While site acquisition may afford the best protection in
most cases, it is not always the most feasible approach. The limitations
inherent in acquiring land, i.e., the large investments of time and
money required, restrict the use of acquisition as a primary method
of site protection and preservation to only a few sites.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), an organization created
to find, protect, and maintain the best examples of natural communities,
ecosystems, and endangered species (The Nature Conservancy 1988:3),
uses a number of techniques, in addition to land acquisition, in its
successful efforts to preserve natural diversity. These techniques differ
in the speed in which they are used, their cost, the strength of the
protection they offer, the duration of the protection they offer, and
the degree to which they restrict a deed (Hoose 1981:29). They include
such techniques as arranging renewable management agreements or leases
and negotiating conservation easements and deed restrictions. By using
a variety of techniques, TNC has been able to accomplish its goal of
natural areas protection, even when acquisition was not feasible. This
has led to the protection and preservation of larger areas and more
species than would have been possible through acquisition alone.

Landowner contact/site registration represents one of
these techniques. It involves a fairly simple, straightforward approach
to natural areas protection, predicated on the assumption that the landowner
has an interest in the resource and will not purposely destroy it, and
that the landowner will act as the resource's steward by virtue of the
preservation commitment he or she is asked to make. Hoose (1981:35-68)
describes this approach as "all carrot and no stick."

On the face of it, landowner contact/site registration
appears to provide virtually no protection for the resource. In actuality,
few cases of breach of commitment have occurred in the more established
natural areas registries (Paul Carmony, personal communication 1987),
and the species for which the properties were registered have remained
undisturbed. In addition, landowner contact/site registration has created
opportunities, in many cases, to negotiate stronger protection for registered
areas at a later date. Given the track record of the natural areas registries,
it can be stated unequivocally that landowner contact/site registration
is a successful preservation strategy that has led to the protection
of many species that might otherwise have been destroyed (Carmony 1982,
1987, personal communication 1987).

Because of the proven effectiveness of landowner contact/site
registration as a protection tool for natural areas, it seems likely
that this technique also holds enormous potential for the protection
and preservation of significant archeological sites. This seems especially
true when one considers that the bottom line for both natural areas
conservation and archeological site preservation is the same: preservation
of the land.1

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry

Figure 1. Facsimile of
the Registry Agreement.

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry (Registry), a
program that involves landowners in the preservation and protection
of Kentucky's significant archeological sites, was developed and implemented
in 1987. The preservation of sites on private property was especially
targeted during the Registry's first two years of operation due to the
lack of legal protection available for such sites.

The purpose of the Registry is to secure the protection
of land that contains important archeological sites. Each landowner
is informed and educated about the significance of the archeological
site he or she owns, and the landowner's aid is enlisted in the site's
protection and preservation. The goal is to encourage the landowner
to make a conscious, voluntary commitment to protect his or her site,
which leads to voluntary stewardship of the site.

The Registry was created as the result of a unique cooperative
effort between two State agencies. The Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC),
which serves as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), had sought
to develop a program of long-term site protection for Kentucky's significant
archeological sites, but lacked the requisite expertise. The Kentucky
State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC), the agency responsible for
administration and management of State nature preserves, had developed
this expertise within the context of its comprehensive program of land
preservation. This program consists of the Kentucky Natural Areas Registry,
an array of land preservation tools and legal options, and the stewardship
and management of acquired properties.

At KHC's request, KSNPC agreed to develop and implement
a site protection strategy for significant archeological sites modeled
on the Kentucky Natural Areas Registry (Henderson 1988b: 11-14). Funding
for the Registry's first two years was provided by Federal Historic
Preservation Fund survey and planning grants. The Registry was developed
and administered during that time by an archeologist hired by KSNPC.
With the title of Registry Coordinator (Coordinator), this archeologist
worked closely with the staff of KHC. Personnel for the program included
primarily the Coordinator and a part-time secretary. The costs for developing
and implementing the Registry for the two years included $36,127 for
personnel and $7,378 for operations, prorated for the actual time spent
on activities. The average cost per year was calculated at $21,753.
This was less than Hoose's (1984:5-6) estimate of $35,000 per year for
a full-time Coordinator once program initiation had been completed.

After the first two years of operation and at the conclusion
of the grants, the Registry program was transferred to KHC and became
a permanent element of the archeological site protection program. Administrative
duties, secretarial services, and the job of Coordinator are now conducted
by KHC personnel in addition to their other responsibilities. The costs
of the Registry have been absorbed by KHC into its existing budget,
and no new expenditures have been made.

Person-to-person contact and the development of a relationship
between the Coordinator and the landowner, based upon mutual respect
and trust, are major elements of the Registry program. This personalized
contact solidifies the landowner's commitment to protect the land. Careful
planning and the development of information that thoroughly documents
the site are also elements of the program. This ensures that only the
most significant and most worthy sites are considered, thereby conferring
a high degree of integrity on the program.

Objectives in registering archeological sites are the
same as those of the natural areas registry programs. These can be summarized
by paraphrasing the objectives outlined in the TNC Midwest Regional
Office Guidelines for Registry Workers (The Nature Conservancy, Midwest
Regional Office 1985:2).

To provide landowners information that prevents the
unintentional or accidental destruction of archeological sites, including
educating landowners about the significance of their sites and the
lifeways of the people who once lived there;

To understand landowners' attitudes toward their
properties and the sites found thereon;

To instill landowners with a sense that their land
is special, and that they are special people for taking care of these
sites;

To acknowledge that in many cases--when most of the
surrounding sites have been destroyed or degraded--their sites remain
only because they have taken deliberate protective measures;

To instill landowners with a sense of responsibility,
at least for monitoring their sites; and

To establish a cordial, personal relationship between
each landowner and the Coordinator that will insure that archeological
sites are protected in private ownership.

The foundation for preservation and protection provided
by the Registry is the preservation commitment made by each landowner.
Participants are asked to honor three requests:

To preserve and protect their sites to the best of
their abilities;

To notify KHC of any threats to the site such as
looting, vandalism, proposed construction, excavation, or any other
ground disturbing activities; and

To notify KHC of any intent to sell or transfer ownership.

Because the preservation commitment is made only between
the current owner and KHC, it does not "run with the land." The preservation
agreement must be negotiated anew when the property is sold and a new
landowner controls the site. This is the reason why the landowner is
requested to provide new information when the property is sold or when
ownership is transferred.

KHC for its part, agrees to the following:

To provide site management assistance; and

To provide, upon request, aid to the landowner in
selecting the most appropriate tools for stronger site protection.

A landowner can participate in the Registry in one of
two ways: by verbally agreeing to protect the site, or by signing a
non-binding Registry Agreement (Figure
1). The landowner's preservation commitment is recognized through
the presentation of awards, commensurate with his or her level of participation.
A certificate (Figure 2), signed by
the Governor of Kentucky and the Chairman of KHC is presented for a
verbal agreement. A certificate and a plaque (Figure 3) are presented
when a Registry Agreement is signed. In both cases, the sites are designated
Kentucky Archaeological Landmarks. A landowner's name also is added
to the KHC's mailing list, and every two months he or she receives KHC's
preservation newsletter, which includes a section about the Registry.
The landowner also receives copies of the Registry newsletter, prepared
annually by the Coordinator, and the Kentucky Archaeological Newsletter,
prepared three times a year by the Program for Cultural Assessment at
the University of Kentucky in Lexington.

Steps In the Registration Process

The process of landowner contact/site registration follows
a series of prescribed steps designed to collect all pertinent information
about the site, the property, and its owner before the landowner is
contacted, and to accurately document the results of any contacts and
communication. Henderson (1988a, 1988b) discusses the development and
implementation of the Registry in more detail, with example handouts,
forms, awards, and letters provided in appendices. Figure 4 depicts
graphically the steps in the landowner contact/site registration process.

Site Selection The integrity of any landowner contact/registry
program, and therefore its effectiveness as a preservation tool, is
directly related to the integrity of the sites selected for preservation
(Carmony 1982:4; Hoose 1981:59). Therefore, before a site is considered
for registration, it must have been identified, located, recorded, and
evaluated for its significance.

To be considered for registration, a site should be
clearly significant. A site's significance is most commonly evaluated
according to the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, which includes examination of site integrity and potential to
address important research questions. Other factors, in addition to
those based upon National Register criteria, can and should be considered
when selecting a site for registration. These include, for example,
the site's cultural affiliation, physiographic setting, or the potential
for threats to its preservation, such as vandalism, erosion, or development.

The first sites chosen for registration were selected
from a master list of potential sites compiled from suggestions by Kentucky's
archeological community-at-large (Henderson 1988b:21-25). Registry site
candidates, selected from this master list by KHC and the Coordinator,
met two general significance criteria:

They had contributed to or had the potential to contribute
to an understanding of Kentucky's prehistoric and/or historic past;
and

They were in a good state of preservation.

Pre-Initial Visit
ActivitiesThese activities consist of creating Registry Site Files
(Site Files), initiating contact with landowners, and developing the
Landowner Site Packet. Development of the Site Files includes collecting
and synthesizing information about each site and its landowner. This
includes gathering information about the environmental and archeological
aspects of the site, the site's significance, known threats, current
information about the landowner and the property on which the site is
located, and landowner attitudes concerning the site and its preservation.
This is accomplished by reviewing all available printed matter regarding
the site, such as reports and papers, as well as previous correspondence,
such as letters from landowners, newspaper clippings, and compliance
review letters. Information about the site and its landowner is solicited
from individuals who may have opinions about the site's preservation,
protection, and management needs, and who may know the landowner or
something about his or her attitudes toward preservation. These people
include avocational and professional archeologists and adjacent landowners.
The archeologist who has been most involved in research at the site,
referred to as the Archaeologist of Record (AOR), may be the single
most helpful source of information about the site. The AOR has the advantage
of knowing the landowner, the site, and their common histories in more
detail than most other informants.

Rosters of all Registry contacts with the landowner
are kept in the Site Files, one for each landowner/site combination.
The Site File contains copies of all correspondence, telephone notes,
and other information. Specific management and stewardship considerations
for the site outlined prior to the Initial Visit are included in the
file.

The Landowner Site Packet, which is left with the landowner
at the end of the Initial Visit, is an individualized collection of
information. It contains general information about the program, specific
information about the site and, where warranted, information about other
archeological topics. It also contains the Registry Agreement. This agreement consists of a topographic map with the site boundaries
and the landowner boundaries outlined on it, a cover page that briefly
describes the site, its significance, and the preservation commitment
the landowner is being asked to make. The Landowner Site Packet is used
to illustrate and clarify aspects about the Registry program. It functions
to educate the landowner about the site and its significance.

The landowner is contacted twice before the Initial
Visit takes place. The first contact is by mail. A brief descriptive
statement about the program is included in the letter, accompanied by
brochures that summarize the Registry program and outline Kentucky prehistory.
Next, the landowner is contacted by telephone to set up an appointment
for the Initial Visit.

The Initial Visit The Initial Visit is the focal point of the landowner
contact/site registration process. During this visit, the Registry program
is explained in detail within the context of discussing the site and
its importance. Stewardship activities the landowner may have undertaken
in the past, as well as the appropriate activities the landowner should
continue to follow, are discussed.

During the Initial Visit, the foundation is laid for
establishing the landowner's preservation commitment and his or her
long-term relationship with the Registry. One of the purposes of the
Registry is to educate the landowner about his or her site: how old
it is; who were its inhabitants, what they wore, and how they lived;
identification of artifacts and their methods of manufacture; and its
significance. In addition to this site information, the Initial Visit
allows the Coordinator to collect information about the landowner and
his or her family, the site's history of use, and the types of threats
it faced in the past.

Some landowners decide to participate in the program
and sign the Registry Agreement during the Initial Visit. Others wish
to think it over and discuss it with family members.2
The Coordinator determines whether a verbal registration has been secured.
In most cases, the landowner will not promise to preserve and protect
the site in those exact words. But if the landowner is sincere and interested,
then a verbal registration is considered to have been secured.

Post-initial Visit
Activities Many of the activities that take place after the Initial
Visit depend on its results. A few activities, however, take place immediately
after each visit irrespective of the landowner's decision regarding
site registration. They fall into two categories, recording information
and communicating with the landowner.

A number of different kinds of information, recorded
and kept on file in the Site File, are collected during the Initial
Visit. This information is critically important to future contacts with
the landowner because it serves as a baseline from which to monitor
the site's condition on subsequent visits and can provide insight into
the stronger protection options that might be most appropriate should
the landowner request them.

A report of the Initial Visit itself is prepared. This
includes a description of activities during the visit, the Coordinator's
feelings about the landowner's receptiveness to the program and perspective
on site preservation, the results of the visit, and the topics discussed.
Facts gathered about the landowner, such as his or her level of education,
economic situation, details about his or her life and family, perspectives
about the site and site preservation, are summarized in a separate report.
Information detailing the condition of the site, including its location
and degree of any looting and vandalism or ground disturbance, is noted
on the Site Monitoring Record.

As soon as possible after the Initial Visit, a thank-you
letter is sent to the landowner regardless of his or her response to
the program. If the landowner expressed interest in learning about other
protection options this information is included (cf. Milne 1984). If
the landowner agreed to participate in the program, the letter mentions
the awards the landowner will receive and reiterates the agreement he
or she made. A number of additional activities are undertaken. The most
important of these is the preparation of the awards. Announcement of
the registration in the newspaper or other media depends upon the landowner's
permission, the site's history of notoriety, its state of preservation,
and threats of looting and vandalism. Press releases are written only
with the landowner's permission and only for sites that are not at a
high risk of looting and vandalism.

Other tasks are carried out soon after the Initial Visit,
especially if the landowner has agreed to participate in the program.
His or her name is added to the various mailing lists, the Registry
newsletter mailing list, KHC's preservation mailing list, and Kentucky
Archaeological Newsletter mailing list. A photocopy of the Registry
Agreement, if it was signed, is sent to the landowner. About a month
later the SHPO/ Director of KHC sends a letter to the landowner in which
he or she personally expresses appreciation for the landowner's decision
to participate.

If the landowner did not agree to participate during
the course of the Initial Visit but wished to think it over, the thank-you
letter is followed by a telephone call within a month. If the answer
then is "yes," the activities discussed above are carried out. A thank-you
letter is sent after the Initial Visit even if the landowner is clearly
not interested in participating in the program. Depending on the nature
of the landowner's negative response, the immediacy of threats to the
site, and the significance of the site, an attempt to contact the landowner
again in six months or a year to reconsider the decision may be appropriate.

Registry Maintenance
ActivitiesUpon the designation of an archeological site as a Kentucky
Archaeological Landmark, a long-term commitment to the site and its
landowner begins. Participation in the Registry provides an opportunity
to establish a relationship with the landowner. In the years that follow
it is hoped that the landowner's interest in the protection and preservation
of the site will grow by virtue of this participation. As a result of
this greater interest, opportunities for stronger protection may develop
in the future.

Registry follow-up and maintenance activities are critically
important to the landowner contact/site registration process (Hoose
1981:56). Landowner contact/site registration can be considered a successful
site preservation option only if the relationship with the landowner
begun during the Initial Visit is nurtured.

Without a good follow-up system to remind owners of
the importance of their areas (sites) and help them develop a firmer
preservation ethic, its (the Registry program's) value could decline
rapidly (Carmony 1987:4).

In effect, then, the easy part of landowner contact/site
registration is the registration itself. The hardest part is staying
in touch with each landowner.

Registry follow-up and maintenance consists of communicating
with the landowner, educating him or her about the importance of protecting
the site, and monitoring the condition of the site at regular intervals.
The goals of follow-up and maintenance activities at registered sites
consist of the following:

Enhancing and continuing to build a relationship
with the landowner;

Educating the landowner about the site and its preservation;

Providing site management support and site protection
information; and

Monitoring the site for any disturbance or new threats
to its Protection.

Frequent and personal communication with the landowner
throughout the year is the primary way by which the relationship with
the landowner is enhanced. This includes sending letters, notes or cards,
preparing and sending the Registry newsletter, and visiting the landowner
in person. The Registry newsletter is an excellent means of maintaining
communication with the participating landowners while simultaneously
informing and educating them. Receipt of the newsletter reminds landowners
of their participation in the program, the agreement they have made,
and the significance of their preservation commitment. It is used to
report on recent program accomplishments and announce conferences, meetings,
or publications of interest to the landowner. It provides information
about prehistory or history, site management, site looting and vandalism,
and stronger protection options.

The single most effective follow-up activity, however,
is the annual Follow-up Visit. The Follow-up Visit is the way in which
landowner communication and education is carried out. The Follow-up
Visit provides the Coordinator with an opportunity to discuss site protection
and to monitor the site's condition. The same landowner contact procedure
for the Initial Visit is followed prior to the Follow-up Visit (Henderson
1988a:3-5). Each landowner is telephoned, and the Follow-up Visit is
scheduled. Care is taken to explain the purpose of the Visit to allay
any concerns landowners might have that an additional request will be
made of them. Prior to the Follow-up Visit, the Coordinator reviews
each Site File to be familiar with the important facts. Information
still promised to a landowner is prepared. Information still lacking
in the Site Files is noted so that it can be collected during the Visit.

Gifts are always brought to the landowner on the Follow-up
Visit. These consist of such items as posters, articles, pamphlets,
or copies of recent legislation that deals with archeological sites.
They serve several functions: (1) they provide an obvious reason for
visiting the landowner and not just his or her site; (2) they provide
an opportunity to demonstrate once again appreciation for the landowner's
Preservation commitment; and (3) they represent a way to educate landowners
about archeology.

Another important function of the Follow-up Visit, is
to provide an opportunity to monitor the site's preservation status.
During the Follow-up Visit, questions are always asked about the site,
its condition, and any problems with looting and/or vandalism the landowner
may have had in the course of the year. If at all possible, the site
is visited in the company of the landowner and site stewardship activities
are discussed. Information is collected about features of the site locale,
locations of current and previous human and natural destruction, and
site boundaries.

Activities conducted after the Follow-up Visit resemble
those undertaken after the Initial Visit and consist of landowner communication
and documentation. A note is sent to the landowner thanking him or her
for spending time with the Coordinator. A note also is sent to the AOR,
if one exists for the site, informing him or her of the Follow-up Visit
and providing updated information about the landowner, his or her family,
and the site's condition.

A Follow-up Visit report is prepared, information about
each landowner is recorded and, if need be, changed in the Site File,
and a Site Monitoring Record Update is completed that includes any changes
noted in the site's preservation status. Once sufficient information
is collected regarding the site's management needs, and this may have
to be collected over the course of several years, a detailed site management
plan is prepared for each site and discussed with the landowner (Henderson
and Hannan 1988:34-40).

Results of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry To Date

The results of landowner contact/site registration
activities undertaken during the Registry's first two years of operation
were very positive. A total of 16 landowners out of 30 contacted agreed
to participate during Year One. Three landowners declined to participate,
eight deferred site registration, and for three landowners site registration
activities were incomplete. Two additional landowners were contacted
during Year Two and agreed to participate. One of the landowners who
deferred in Year One chose to participate during Year Two. This resulted
in a combined total of 19 participating landowners out of the 32 who
were contacted in person by the Coordinator during Year One and Year
Two. Sixteen landowners agreed to participate by signing a Registry
Agreement while the remaining three gave verbal consent to program participation.

Figure 5. Located on
the property of Mrs. Ann H. Gay, this mound is listed in the Registry.
(Photo courtesy of David Pollack).

The 19 Registry entries represent registration for
19 archeological sites totaling 300 acres. Eighteen sites were registered
during Year One, while one new site was registered during Year Two.
Registration for 15 of these sites encompasses the entire site area,
while four of the registries cover only a portion of the site. These
partial registries, in most cases, represent over one-third to three-fourths
of the site. Site types registered include earthen enclosures, a ditched
enclosure, burial mounds (Figure 5), villages, temple mound and village
complexes, a stone alignment, and a rockshelter. Cultural components
at these sites include prehistoric sites with either single or multicomponent
deposits, as well as one site with an early historic component.

The condition of 16 of the 18 sites registered during
the program's first year of operation remained unchanged during the
second year of operation. Notable alterations occurred only two of these
sites and to the newly registered site. This resulted in a total of
three registered sites at which conditions had changed between the Initial
Visit and the Follow-up Visit. Changes at two had occurred due to a
change in land use. At one site the land use varied because the property
was sold. Timber had
been removed in some areas, while in others, the site was disked and
sown with grass for pasture. At the other site, a road built to haul
timber had been constructed by a third party in the site area, contrary
to the landowner's instructions. Disturbance to these two sites was
minimal. Changes at the third had occurred as a result of vandalism,
which, while substantial, did not significantly alter the site's integrity.

During the Registry's first year of operation, five
requests were received for information about stronger site protection,
including easements, site donation and purchase, and site management
(Henderson 1989a:7-10 and 1988b:57-58). They were solicited by three
landowners who decided to participate in the program and by two who
deferred. One new request for stronger site protection was received
from a participating landowner during the Registry's second year of
operation.

In response to these requests, information was prepared
and sent to the landowners, the landowners were visited again, and options
available to them were discussed. More detailed information about property
boundaries also was collected, and the landowners' requests were discussed
with KHC as well as with potentially interested third parties such as
The Archaeological Conservancy, a private archeological site preservation
organization (Ford 1983), and the University of Kentucky. To date, protection
beyond site registration has not been negotiated for these sites.

The request for aid in site management, unlike the requests
for stronger site protection, was handled in a different manner. Through
discussions with the media relations manager of the corporation that
owns a registered site, it became clear that the company was interested
in receiving information that would help it manage the site more effectively.
Serving as a clearinghouse, the Coordinator sought aid from the archeological
community in honoring this request. A graduate student at the University
of Kentucky volunteered to provide the requested information. The site
was mapped, tested, and a detailed management study was prepared (Sanders
1988). As a result of this project, the company was provided with the
management assistance it needed.3

More in-depth discussion of the program's results, as
well as the characteristics of the Registry sites and their landowners,
is provided in Henderson (1988a:2-11 and 1988b:43-70).

Program Evaluation

Landowner contact/site registration has been proven to
be effective in the protection and preservation of natural areas since
1980 (Hoose 1984:7). The results of the Registry's first two years of
operation are comparable to the results of the natural areas registry
programs (Carmony 1982, 1987) and demonstrate that the landowner contact/site
registration technique can be successfully adapted to the protection
of unique and irreplaceable archeological resources. Several factors
can be cited as contributing to the success of the program.

One obvious reason is the fact that it is modeled upon
TNC's successful registry program. By following this model, which has
been field tested in many situations, the Registry placed itself in
an excellent position to succeed.

The communication, trust, and rapport that develops
between the landowner and the Coordinator is another factor that contributes
to the Registry's success. Since the Registry program is personified
by the Coordinator, the personality and attitude of the Coordinator
can make or break a landowner contact/site registration program (Hoose
1984:6). The Coordinator must be able to communicate effectively with
landowners in a nonthreatening way about the program and their sites'
importance and, therefore, convince them to make the commitment to preserve
and protect their sites.

A third factor that contributes to the Registry's success
is the existence of an AOR for a site. The concept of the AOR does not
have a counterpart in TNC's landowner contact/site registration formula.
It became evident in the early stages of the Registry's development,
however, that the chances for registration would be greater for sites
at which professional archeologists had worked for many years and developed
rapport with the landowners. The AOR often had considerable personal
and professional investment in a site, concern for its future, and ideas
on ways to preserve it. He or she previously may have discussed site
preservation and management with the landowner. Given a role in the
registration process, AORs proved to be an important source of support
since their understanding and appreciation of the Registry, together
with their positive attitude toward it, often helped allay landowners'
misgivings.

Summary
and Conclusion

The Registry provides a cost-effective, programmatic
response to the problem of long-term protection and preservation of
significant archeological sites on private property. It encourages the
preservation and protection of Kentucky's significant archeological
sites by enlisting the aid of landowners in their preservation. Its
major functions include the following:

To provide low-level site protection;

To provide opportunities for regular and systematic
monitoring of significant sites; and

To provide opportunities to educate participating
landowners about the importance and the preservation of their sites.

As a result of the activities undertaken during the
first two years of operation, it was demonstrated that the Registry
also can serve other purposes. For instance, it can help nurture a constituency
concerned about general issues in site protection and preservation.
During Year Two, for instance, landowners were informed of looting that
had occurred to a site in western Kentucky. They were asked to write
to the County Attorney to express their concern about the site's destruction.
Many landowners previously had had similar experiences with looting
on their sites and had felt powerless to do much about it. It was decided
that this incident presented an opportunity for the landowners to do
something about their frustration. As owners of Kentucky Archaeological
Landmarks, they were in a unique position to tell officials that site
looting is not a rare or isolated occurrence in the State. Four of the
landowners sent letters.

Another function the Registry can serve is that of renewing
or piquing archeologists' interest in studying these important sites.
Archeologists were made aware that some sites considered to have been
destroyed actually exist in a good state of preservation even after
having been forgotten for decades. Some of these archeologists have
expressed serious interest in pursuing research activities at Registry
sites. When archeologists begin to plan such studies, the Registry will
provide them with current site information and suggestions on the kinds
of information needed about the site, as well as information about the
landowner and the landowner's position regarding conducting research
at the site. Archeologists contemplating such work will have to obtain
the landowner's permission to conduct any field work.

The Registry can facilitate communication between the
landowner and parties interested in negotiating stronger site protection.
The Registry program can introduce groups, such as The Archaeological
Conservancy, to interested landowners and provide information to these
groups that might enhance their opportunity to acquire significant sites
(Henderson 1988a:12).

Hoose (1984:1), however, considers a landowner contact/site
registration program to be most useful as the primary level within a
system of protection tools. In some situations stronger site protection,
such as management leases, deed restrictions, conservation easements,
or dedications (Henderson 1988b:7181; Henderson and Hannan 1988), are
required to ensure adequate protection of the property. In this case
the Registry also serves as a screening device for sites and situations
that might combine to produce opportunities for stronger and more enduring
site protection. As discussed previously, six such instances of requests
for information on stronger site protection and management were encountered
during the Registry's first two years of operation.

The site protection provided by landowners who participate
in the Registry illustrates the preservation potential that exists in
a generally untapped resource: the landowner. Landowners serving as
voluntary site stewards will help to ensure that Kentucky's most significant
sites will be preserved and protected for the future.

The success of the Registry to date has struck a cord
with many of the landowners who have been contacted during its short
existence. As a positive approach to site protection, the Registry also
has struck a cord with archeologists (Henderson 1988a:13-14). There
appears to be an increasing awareness on the part of archeologists of
the need to become involved in and develop methods of site protection
and preservation in addition to those commonly used in the past. Hand
in hand with this growing awareness is the acknowledgment that archeologists
must provide the public with better access to information acquired through
archeological research. Archeologists see in the Registry a way to respond
to both needs in a cost-effective, positive way, and its success should
encourage other States to develop registries of their own. The creation
of the Registry seems to be riding the crest of a wave in American archeology
that recognizes that public involvement in archeology is the best way
to ensure there is archeology in our future.

For more information about the Kentucky Archaeological
Registry, contact:

Copies of The Kentucky Archaeological Registry: Citizen-based
Preservation for Kentucky's Archaeological Sites and Results of the
Kentucky Archaeological Registry Program's Second Year of 0peration
by A. Gwynn Henderson, which describe respectively the Registry's first
and second years of operation, are available from KHC at the above address.

Notes

1
Surprisingly few landowner contact/site registration programs had been
incorporated into the archeological community's approach to site preservation
prior to the creation of the Registry. None had been patterned on TNC's
landowner contact/site registration model.

During development of the Registry, a site protection
questionnaire was sent to all 56 SHPOs (Henderson 1988b:22-23). From
the 33 responses received, it was learned that 15 States have some form
of archeological registry program "on their books." Some States had
not implemented their registry programs due to a lack of success in
the past or a lack of personnel and funds. Other programs depend on
the initiative of the private landowner for site registration. Several
mirror the National Register of Historic Places by providing protection
under a State "Section 106" compliance process. None of these programs,
however, is composed of the same elements embodied within the landowner
contact/site registration program that is the Registry.

2
Many questions were raised about the National Register of Historic Places
probably due to the similarity in the names of the two programs. Landowners
whose sites were already listed in the National Register were sometimes
puzzled when they were requested to participate in the Registry. Similarly,
landowners who held misconceptions about the National Register often
transferred these misconceptions to the Registry. When this occurred,
the Coordinator tried to address these questions by contrasting the
two programs. Some of the more important differences include the following:

National Register status applies to a site even after
ownership changes. In the case of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry,
the new landowner has to be contacted and asked to continue the preservation
commitment made by the former owner;

Frequent personal contact with participating landowners
is not an element of the National Register, but it is a major element
of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry; and

National Register status is an element of Federal
historic preservation law. Kentucky Archaeological Landmark status
confers no legal protection under State laws.

Other differences between the two programs are discussed
in Henderson (1988b:64-65).

Some questions that were occasionally raised dealt with
the limitations to land use that participation in the Registry might
engender. These included such questions as:

Will I be able to construct buildings and fences
where I choose, or will I have to get permission from KHC?

Will participation affect my children's inheritance
of the property?

Will I need KHC's permission to sell my land and
will KHC have a voice in deciding to whom I may sell?

Will participation in the Registry affect the property
value of my land?

Will registration lead to increased or required visitation
of my site?

Since registration of a site as a Kentucky Archaeological
Landmark is completely voluntary, non-regulatory, and not legally binding,
no limitations are placed on the landowner's use of the land or children's
later use of the property. The request that the landowner notify KHC
of an intent to transfer ownership is made simply to facilitate contact
with the subsequent landowner to request continuation of the former
owner's preservation commitment. It is unclear how registration of a
site will affect property values, although the landowner could certainly
use it to his or her advantage when negotiating a price for the property.
No public visitation of a registered site is required for participation
in the program.

Most questions raised by the landowners focused not
on the Registry, its limitations, or stipulations, but rather on the
site: How old was it? What kinds of people had lived there? Was this
the only site like it in the State? The Registry Coordinator also was
asked to identify artifacts in landowners' collections, to give names
and dates, and to describe how they had been made.

One question never specifically raised was "So, what's
in it for me?" In describing the program to the landowner, the Coordinator
described benefits in anticipation of this unspoken question. They included
some of the following (Henderson 1988b:63-64):

Registration is a good thing because you get a feeling
of personal satisfaction knowing you have preserved the past for the
future;

By registering your site, you receive recognition
that you own something special and have done something special to
preserve it;

Registration offers you an opportunity to learn more
about your site and your property; and

Through registration, you gain membership in a select
group of Kentucky landowners.

3
Generally, requests for information about financial assistance, tax
benefits, and legal advice have not been made. These kinds of requests
might become more common as the Registry becomes established and if
participating landowners choose to pursue stronger protection options
for their sites.